Method and system for enabling decentralized, trustworthy and collaborative sharing of services

ABSTRACT

Methods and systems for selecting a service provider are disclosed. Information pertaining to print service providers, including associated user and general reputation scores, are received. Each user reputation score identifies a user&#39;s perception of a print service provider&#39;s reputation. Each general reputation score identifies a general strength of the print service provider&#39;s reputation. A first set of providers is selected based on a threshold user reputation score. A second set of providers is selected (pseudo-)randomly. A trust score is determined for each provider in the first and second sets based on the associated user and general reputation scores. One or more negotiation providers are selected from the first and second sets based on the associated trust scores. One or more of the user and general reputation scores are updated for negotiation providers based on a quality of service provided or an offer provided to or by the negotiation provider.

BACKGROUND

Users select service providers to perform a variety of services. Forexample, an operation that a company does not perform as part of itsday-to-day business operations can be outsourced to a service providerthat specializes in performing such operation. Similarly, if a usergenerates a high volume of work for a particular task, it may be morecost efficient to use a service provider than to purchase the equipmentand staff necessary to perform the task.

In the provision of business services, trust can be defined as asubjective probability by which a user expects to use a service providerfor performing a particular service. Trust, therefore, identifies acomfort level that a user has with a service provider. Alternately,contract can be defined as an agreement between a user and a serviceprovider by which a service is committed to meet the user'sexpectations. As such, contract refers to a commitment between a userand a service provider.

One problem with identifying a service provider for a service is that auser may use a particular service provider that is not the best serviceprovider for a particular service because of institutional inertia.Moreover, some service providers have difficulty breaking into orexpanding their presence in a market even if the services that theyperform are of high utility (based on price, quality or a number ofother metrics) because of a lack of name recognition.

SUMMARY

This disclosure is not limited to the particular systems, devices andmethods described, as these may vary. The terminology used in thedescription is for the purpose of describing the particular versions orembodiments only, and is not intended to limit the scope.

As used in this document, the singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the”include plural references unless the context clearly dictates otherwise.Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used hereinhave the same meanings as commonly understood by one of ordinary skillin the art. Nothing in this disclosure is to be construed as anadmission that the embodiments described in this disclosure are notentitled to antedate such disclosure by virtue of prior invention. Asused in this document, the term “comprising” means “including, but notlimited to.”

In an embodiment, a system for selecting a print service provider mayinclude a computing device, and a non-transitory computer-readablemedium in operable communication with the computing device. Thecomputer-readable medium contains one or more programming instructionsthat, when executed, cause the computing device to receive informationpertaining to a plurality of print service providers including anassociated user reputation score identifying a strength of a reputationof the print service provider with respect to a user and an associatedgeneral reputation score identifying a strength of a reputation of aprint service provider among a plurality of users, select first andsecond sets of print service providers from the plurality of printservice providers, where each of the first set of print serviceproviders has an associated user reputation score that exceeds athreshold value and each of the second set of print service providersare randomly or pseudo-randomly selected from the plurality of printservice providers, determine a trust score for each of the print serviceproviders in the first and second sets of print service providers basedon the user reputation score and the general reputation score associatedwith the associated print service provider, select one or morenegotiation print service providers from the first set and second set ofprint service providers based on the associated trust scores for theprint service providers, and update one or more of the associatedgeneral reputation score and the associated user reputation score foreach of the one or more negotiation print service providers based on oneor more of a quality of a service provided to the user by thenegotiation print service provider, an offer provided to a negotiationprint service provider, and an offer provided by the negotiation printservice provider.

In an embodiment, a method of selecting a print service provider mayinclude receiving information pertaining to a plurality of print serviceproviders including an associated user reputation score identifying astrength of a reputation of the print service provider with respect to auser and an associated general reputation score identifying a strengthof a reputation of a print service provider among a plurality of users,selecting first and second sets of print service providers from theplurality of print service providers, where each of the first set ofprint service providers has an associated user reputation score thatexceeds a threshold value and where each of the second set of printservice providers are randomly or pseudo-randomly selected from theplurality of print service providers, determining a trust score for eachof the print service providers in the first and second sets of printservice providers based on the user reputation score and the generalreputation score associated with the associated print service provider,selecting one or more negotiation print service providers from the firstset and second set of print service providers based on the associatedtrust scores for the print service providers, and updating one or moreof the associated general reputation score and the associated userreputation score for each of the one or more negotiation print serviceproviders based on one or more of a quality of a service provided to theuser by the negotiation print service provider, an offer provided to anegotiation print service provider, and an offer provided by thenegotiation print service provider.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 depicts a block diagram of an exemplary user-service providernetwork according to an embodiment.

FIG. 2 depicts a flow diagram of an illustrative method of selecting aservice provider for a service according to an embodiment.

FIG. 3 depicts a block diagram of illustrative internal hardware thatmay be used to contain or implement program instructions according to anembodiment.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The following terms shall have, for the purposes of this application,the respective meanings set forth below.

A “computing device” refers to a computer, a processor and/or any othercomponent, device or system that performs one or more operationsaccording to one or more programming instructions. An illustrativecomputing device is described in reference to FIG. 3.

As used herein, the terms “sum,” “product” and similar mathematicalterms are construed broadly to include any method or algorithm in whicha single datum is derived or calculated from a plurality of input data.

“Contract” refers to an agreement between a user and a service providerby which a service is committed to meet the user's expectations. Assuch, a contract refers to a commitment between a user and a serviceprovider.

A “general reputation score” refers to a value pertaining to aperception of an entity by a plurality of individuals or users.

A “negotiation print service provider” refers to a print serviceprovider that is intended to receive at least one offer from a user fora particular print service.

A “negotiation service provider” refers to a service provider that isintended to receive at least one offer from a user for a particularservice.

A “print service provider” refers to an entity that performs one or moreprint services for a user.

A “service” refers to one or more operations. Illustrative services mayinclude, without limitation, printing, copying, binding, deliveringmaterials, procurement, production, and the like.

A “service provider” refers to an entity that performs one or moreservices for a user. A service provider may generally perform, forexample and without limitation, print services, copy services,construction services, delivery services, and/or any other types ofservices.

“Trust” refers to a subjective probability by which a user expects touse a service. As such, trust refers to a subjective comfort level thata user has with a service provider.

A “trust score” refers to a value pertaining to an overall reputationassociated with a particular service provider for a particular user. Atrust score associated with a service provider may be determined usingat least a general reputation score and a user reputation score. Each ofthe general reputation score and the user reputation score may beassigned a relative weight when determining the corresponding trustscore.

An “user reputation score” refers to a value pertaining to a perceptionof an entity by an individual or user.

The methods and systems disclosed herein combine trust and contract toachieve workload balance and customer satisfaction. The methods andsystems evaluate trust based on a particular user's personal experienceswith a service provider and recommendations from other users. Moreover,the methods and systems identify negotiation strategies that are appliedin contract conversations with service providers. Interactions betweenusers and service providers, including negotiations and/or theperformance of services, are incorporated into service trust ratings.

FIG. 1 depicts a block diagram of an exemplary user-service providernetwork according to an embodiment. As shown in FIG. 1, at least oneuser, such as 105 a-b, and a plurality of service providers, such as 110a-d, may be in communication with a system 115 for selecting a serviceprovider for a service. The selection system 115 may store informationpertaining to each service provider 110 such as a general reputationscore for the service provider and a plurality of user experience scorespertaining to the experience of each user 105 with the service provider(if any). In an embodiment, the information may include a set of scoresand time information, such as a time stamp, corresponding to each score.Using such information may allow for a weighting to be applied tocorresponding to the time at which a particular score was recorded.Additional and/or alternate information may also be stored within thescope of this disclosure.

The system 115 may permit additional users 105 and/or service providers110 intermittently or periodically by storing information pertaining toeach user or service provider. In particular, a new service provider 110may provide a list of services that the service provider is willing toperform. In such a manner, the system 115 may enable the serviceprovider 110 to be considered for future service requests.

A user 105 may request a list of service providers 110 for a particularservice from the system 115. The system 115 may determine a plurality ofservice providers 110 to provide to the user 105 based on the teachingsdisclosed herein.

Once one or more service providers 110 are selected, a user 105 maycontact each service provider directly. Alternately, the system 115 maypermit the user 105 to contact a service provider 110 through the systemitself.

The users 105 and/or service providers 110 may be connected to thesystem 115 via a communication link, such as a computer networkincluding one or more of the Internet, a local area network, a wide areanetwork, a telephone network, and/or the like. Other means ofcommunicating among the users 105, the service providers 110 and thesystem 115 may also be performed within the scope of this disclosure.

FIG. 2 depicts a flow diagram of an illustrative method of selecting aservice provider for a service according to an embodiment. As depictedin FIG. 2, information pertaining to a plurality of service providersmay be received 205 by a computing device. The information may include,for each service provider, a user reputation score associated with theservice provider and a general reputation score associated with theservice provider.

The user reputation score may identify a strength of reputation of theservice provider with respect to the user requesting the service. In anembodiment, the user reputation score may be determined based on thefollowing equation:

${R_{u} = {\sum\limits_{j = 0}^{k}\;( \frac{R_{u,t_{j}}}{t - t_{j}} )}},$where R_(u) is the weighted average user reputation score for aparticular service provider; R_(u,t) _(j) represents the average servicerating at the time interval between time t_(j) and time t_(j+1). Assuch, the user reputation score may equal a sum of, for each of aplurality of time intervals, a product of an average user reputationscore for the service provider for the time interval and a weightassociated with the time interval.

The general reputation score may identify a strength of reputation forthe service among a plurality of users. In an embodiment, the generalreputation score may be determined based on the following equation:

${R_{e} = {\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{k}\;( \frac{R_{e,t_{i}}}{t - t_{i}} )}},$where R_(e) is the weighted average general reputation for a particularservice provider; R_(e,t) _(i) represents the average service rating atthe time interval between time t_(i) and time t_(i+1). As such, thegeneral reputation score may equal a sum of, for each of a plurality oftime intervals, a product of an average general reputation score for theservice provider for the time interval and a weight associated with thetime interval.

First and second sets of service providers may be selected 210 from theplurality of service providers by the computing device. In anembodiment, each of the first set of service providers may be selected210 using the associated user reputation score. For example, eachservice provider in the first set of service providers may have a userreputation score that exceeds a threshold value (i.e., has a highreputation for a user). In an embodiment, each of the second set ofservice providers may be randomly or pseudo-randomly selected 210 fromthe plurality of service providers. In an embodiment, each of the secondset of service providers may be selected 210 from service providershaving a user reputation score that does not exceed the threshold value.

In an embodiment, the first and second set of service providers may beselected 210 by identifying a distribution between the first and secondset of service providers. The distribution may include a firstpercentage and a second percentage. The first percentage may represent apercentage of the total number of service providers to be selected 210that are to be in the first set of service providers. The secondpercentage may represent a percentage of the total number of serviceproviders to be selected 210 that are to be in the second set of serviceproviders. The sum of the first percentage and the second percentage mayequal 100%. The first set of service providers may be selected based onthe first percentage, and the second set of service providers may beselected based on the second percentage. In an embodiment, selecting 210the first and second sets of service providers may include receiving thefirst and second percentages by the computing device from a user.

The values for the first and second percentages may be adjusted based onone or more factors. For example, the values of the first and secondpercentages may be adjusted based on the maximal duration of thenegotiation process and/or the requested evaluation frequency of alow-reputation or new service provider.

A trust score may be determined 215 for each of the service providers inthe first and second set of providers by the computing device. The trustscore may be determined 215 based on the user reputation score and thegeneral reputation score associated with the associated serviceprovider. In an embodiment, the user may calculate the trust scores forservice providers performing a service using the following formula:R=(1−α)R_(e)+αR_(u), where R_(e) represents the weighted averagereputation for a particular service provider, and R_(u) represents theuser's personal experience with the service provider. As such,determining 215 the trust score for each of the service providers in thefirst and second sets of service providers may include summing a productof the user reputation score and a first weight and a product of thegeneral reputation score and a second weight.

In an embodiment, the value for α may be configurable depending onwhether a particular user favors reputation or personal experience. Inan embodiment, heuristic rules may be applied to automatically adjustthe value for α. For example, if a user's experience with a serviceprovider consistently differs from the general reputation for theservice provider, the value for α may be decreased. Similarly, the valuefor α0 may be increased if a user consistently agrees with a serviceprovider's reputation.

One or more negotiation service providers may be selected 220 from thefirst and second sets of service providers by the computing device basedon the associated trust scores for the service providers. For example,service providers having trust scores greater than a threshold value maybe selected 220 as negotiation service providers.

In an embodiment, at least one offer may be provided 225 to thenegotiation service providers. The offer to be provided 225 may bedetermined based on one or more of one or more quality of servicevariables, one or more quality of service weights, and one or morequality of service incremental changes. Each of the quality of serviceweights and quality of service incremental changes may be associatedwith a corresponding quality of service variable. In other words, ateach of one or more negotiation iterations, a user may use the followingequation to determine an offer: O=W*Q^(T)*ΔW^(T), where Q is a vector ofquality of service variables, such as cost and response time; W is aquality of service weight vector for the quality of service variables;and ΔW is a vector of the quality of service incremental changes thatare applied at each negotiation iteration. In an embodiment, W may bedetermined by the user. If a quality of service variable has a highweight, the user may have less negotiation space for the particularquality of service variable.

In an embodiment, at negotiation iteration i, ΔW_(i) may be determinedby applying a probability based incremental change in ΔW_(i−1). In anembodiment, the probability may be based on two factors: (1) ΔW_(i−1)and (2) the service provider's offer at negotiation iteration i−1, whichmay be denoted as S_(i−1). This probability may be modeled as aconstrained multi-dimension optimization problem in which elements withlarger values in ΔW_(i−1) are less likely to be changed (constraints),and multiple elements with smaller values in ΔW_(i−1) may be adjusted tofind the ΔW_(i) which results in the smallest distance form O_(i) toS_(i−1). The likelihood of adjustment for these elements may beinversely proportional to the element values in W. Conventional linearprogramming algorithms may be applied here to determine ΔW_(i).

A negotiation iteration may be terminated when either a mutually agreedcontract is reached or at least one of the elements in ΔW reaches itsboundary. In the latter case, the user may not be able to furthernegotiate within the user's parameters, so the negotiation with theparticular service provider may end without a mutually agreed contract.

A reputation score for each of the one or more negotiation serviceproviders may be updated 230. In an embodiment, the reputation score maybe updated 230 based on one or more of a quality of a service providedto the user by the negotiation service provider, an offer provided to anegotiation service provider, and an offer provided by the negotiationservice provider.

In an embodiment, the reputation score may be updated 230 for anegotiation service provider that performs a service for the user basedon a quality of the service that is performed. For example, a serviceprovider that is selected may receive a user rating after usage (p_(j,t)₁ ), which contributed to the service rating at the correspondinginterval. In an embodiment, the reputation score may be updated 230 fora negotiation service provider that does not perform a service for theuser based on a quality of a negotiation process between the user andthe negotiation service provider. For example, a service provider thatis not selected may receive a rating after the negotiation processunsuccessfully completes (q_(j,t) ₁ ). The rating for the serviceprovider may then be normalized by all of the service ratings in aparticular time interval

$( {\sum\limits_{j = 0}^{n}\; R_{{ej},t_{1}}} ).$The average reputation score of the service provider at time t₁ may becomputed using the following equation:

${R_{e,t_{1}} = \frac{{\sum\limits_{j = 0}^{x}\; p_{j,t_{1}}} + {\beta{\sum\limits_{j = 0}^{y}\; q_{j,t_{1}}}}}{\sum\limits_{j = 0}^{n}\; R_{{ej},t_{1}}}},$where q_(j,t) ₁ is inversely proportional to the distance between thefinal offers of the service provider and the user. For example, q_(j,t)₁ may be relatively larger if the final offer from the user is close tothe final offer from the service. β may be used to adjust the relativeweighting of the negotiation score in determining the service providerreputation score.

In an embodiment, the user's personal experience score for time intervalt₁ may be determined as follows:

$R_{u,t_{1}} = \{ \begin{matrix}p_{j,t_{1}} & {{if}\mspace{14mu}{the}\mspace{14mu}{user}\mspace{14mu}{used}\mspace{14mu}{the}\mspace{14mu}{service}} \\q_{j,t_{1}} & {{if}\mspace{14mu}{the}\mspace{14mu}{user}\mspace{14mu}{negotiated}\mspace{14mu}{but}\mspace{14mu}{did}\mspace{14mu}{not}\mspace{14mu}{use}\mspace{14mu}{the}\mspace{14mu}{{service}.}}\end{matrix} $

FIG. 3 depicts a block diagram of illustrative internal hardware thatmay be used to contain or implement program instructions, such as theprocess steps discussed above in reference to FIG. 2, according toembodiments. A bus 300 serves as the main information highwayinterconnecting the other illustrated components of the hardware. CPU305 is the central processing unit of the system, performingcalculations and logic operations required to execute a program. CPU305, alone or in conjunction with one or more of the other elementsdisclosed in FIG. 3, is an illustrative processing device, computingdevice or processor as such terms are used within this disclosure. Readonly memory (ROM) 310 and random access memory (RAM) 315 constituteillustrative memory devices (i.e., processor-readable non-transitorystorage media).

A controller 320 interfaces with one or more optional memory devices 325to the system bus 300. These memory devices 325 may include, forexample, an external or internal DVD drive, a CD ROM drive, a harddrive, flash memory, a USB drive or the like. As indicated previously,these various drives and controllers are optional devices.

Program instructions, software or interactive modules for providing theinterface and performing any querying or analysis associated with one ormore data sets may be stored in the ROM 310 and/or the RAM 315.Optionally, the program instructions may be stored on a tangiblecomputer readable medium such as a compact disk, a digital disk, flashmemory, a memory card, a USB drive, an optical disc storage medium, suchas a Blu-ray™ disc, and/or other non-transitory storage media.

An optional display interface 330 may permit information from the bus300 to be displayed on the display 335 in audio, visual, graphic oralphanumeric format. Communication with external devices, such as aprint device, may occur using various communication ports 340. Anillustrative communication port 340 may be attached to a communicationsnetwork, such as the Internet or an intranet.

The hardware may also include an interface 345 which allows for receiptof data from input devices such as a keyboard 350 or other input device355 such as a mouse, a joystick, a touch screen, a remote control, apointing device, a video input device and/or an audio input device.

Various of the above-disclosed and other features and functions, oralternatives thereof, may be combined into many other different systemsor applications. Various presently unforeseen or unanticipatedalternatives, modifications, variations or improvements therein may besubsequently made by those skilled in the art, each of which is alsointended to be encompassed by the disclosed embodiments.

What is claimed is:
 1. A system for selecting a print service provider,the system comprising: a computing device; and a non-transitorycomputer-readable medium in operable communication with the computingdevice, wherein the computer-readable medium contains one or moreprogramming instructions that, when executed, cause the computing deviceto: receive information pertaining to a plurality of print serviceproviders, wherein the information for each print service providercomprises an associated user reputation score identifying a strength ofa reputation of the print service provider with respect to a user and anassociated general reputation score identifying a strength of areputation of a print service provider among a plurality of users;identify a distribution which comprises a first size for a first set ofprint service providers, and a second size for a second set of printservice providers; select the first set of print service providers fromthe plurality of print service providers based on the first size, andselect the second set of print service providers from the plurality ofprint service providers based on the second size, wherein each of thefirst set of print service providers has an associated user reputationscore that exceeds a threshold value, wherein each of the second set ofprint service providers are randomly or pseudo-randomly selected fromthe plurality of print service providers; determine a trust score foreach of the print service providers in the first and second sets ofprint service providers, wherein each trust score is based on the userreputation score and the general reputation score associated with theassociated print service provider; select one or more negotiation printservice providers from the first set and second set of print serviceproviders based on the associated trust scores for the print serviceproviders; and update one or more of the associated general reputationscore and the associated user reputation score for each of the one ormore negotiation print service providers based on one or more of aquality of a service provided to the user by the negotiation printservice provider, an offer provided to a negotiation print serviceprovider, and an offer provided by the negotiation print serviceprovider.
 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the first size is a firstpercentage of a total number of selections for the first set of printservice providers and the second size is a second percentage of a totalnumber of selections for the second set of print service providers,wherein a sum of the first and second percentages equals 100%.
 3. Thesystem of claim 1, wherein the one or more programming instructions thatfurther comprise one or more programming instructions that, whenexecuted, cause the computing device to receive the first and secondsizes from a user.
 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or moreprogramming instructions that, when executed, cause the computing deviceto determine the trust score for each of the print service providers inthe first and second sets of print service providers comprise one ormore programming instructions that, when executed, cause the computingdevice to sum a product of the associated user reputation score and afirst weight and a product of the associated general reputation scoreand a second weight.
 5. The system of claim 1, wherein each associatedgeneral reputation score is equal to a sum of, for each of a pluralityof time intervals, a product of an average general reputation score forthe print service provider for the time interval and a weight associatedwith the time interval.
 6. The system of claim 1, wherein eachassociated user reputation score is equal to a sum of, for each of aplurality of time intervals, a product of an average user reputationscore for the print service provider for the time interval and a weightassociated with the time interval.
 7. The system of claim 1, wherein theone or more programming instructions further comprise one or moreprogramming instructions that, when executed, cause the computing deviceto provide an offer to the negotiation print service providers, whereinthe offer is determined based on one or more of one or more quality ofservice variables, one or more quality of service weights, and one ormore quality of service incremental changes, wherein each of the qualityof service weights and quality of service incremental changes areassociated with a corresponding quality of service variable.
 8. Thesystem of claim 1, wherein the one or more programming instructionsthat, when executed, cause the computing device to update one or more ofthe associated general reputation score and the associated userreputation score comprise one or more programming instructions that,when executed, cause the computing device to update the associated userreputation score for a negotiation print service provider that performsa service based on a quality of the service that is performed for theuser.
 9. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more programminginstructions that, when executed, cause the computing device to updateone or more of the associated general reputation score and theassociated user reputation score comprise one or more programminginstructions that, when executed, cause the computing device to updatethe associated general reputation score for a negotiation print serviceprovider that does not perform a service based on a quality of anegotiation process between the user and the negotiation print serviceprovider.
 10. A method of selecting a print service provider, the methodcomprising: receiving, by a computing device, information pertaining toa plurality of print service providers, wherein the information for eachprint service provider comprises an associated user reputation score andan associated general reputation score, wherein each user reputationscore identifies a strength of a reputation of the associated printservice provider with respect to a user, wherein each general reputationscore identifies a strength of a reputation of the associated printservice provider among a plurality of users; identifying, by thecomputing device, a distribution comprising a first size for a first setof print service providers, and a second size for a second set of printservice providers; selecting, by the computing device, the first set ofprint service providers from the plurality of print service providersbased on the first size, and the second set of print service providersfrom the plurality of print service providers based on the second size,wherein each of the first set of print service providers has anassociated user reputation score that exceeds a threshold value, whereineach of the second set of print service providers are randomly orpseudo-randomly selected from the plurality of print service providers;determining, by the computing device, a trust score for each of theprint service providers in the first and second sets of print serviceproviders, wherein the trust score is determined based on the userreputation score and the general reputation score associated with theassociated print service provider; selecting, by the computing device,one or more negotiation print service providers from the first set andsecond set of print service providers based on the associated trustscores for the print service providers; and updating, by the computingdevice, one or more of the associated general reputation score and theassociated user reputation score for each of the one or more negotiationprint service providers based on one or more of a quality of a serviceprovided to the user by the negotiation print service provider, an offerprovided to a negotiation print service provider, and an offer providedby the negotiation print service provider.
 11. The method of claim 10,wherein the first size is a first percentage of a total number ofselections for the first set of print service providers and the secondsize is a second percentage of a total number of selections for thesecond set of print service providers, wherein a sum of the first andsecond percentages equals 100%.
 12. The method of claim 10, whereinselecting the first and second sets of print service providers furthercomprises receiving, by the computing device, the first and second sizesfrom a user.
 13. The method of claim 10, wherein determining the trustscore for each of the print service providers in the first and secondsets of print service providers comprises summing a product of theassociated user reputation score and a first weight and a product of theassociated general reputation score and a second weight.
 14. The methodof claim 10, wherein the associated general reputation score is equal toa sum of, for each of a plurality of time intervals, a product of anaverage general reputation score for the print service provider for thetime interval and a weight associated with the time interval.
 15. Themethod of claim 10, wherein the associated user reputation score isequal to a sum of, for each of a plurality of time intervals, a productof an average user reputation score for the print service provider forthe time interval and a weight associated with the time interval. 16.The method of claim 10, further comprising: providing an offer to thenegotiation print service providers, wherein the offer is determinedbased on one or more of one or more quality of service variables, one ormore quality of service weights, and one or more quality of serviceincremental changes, wherein each of the quality of service weights andquality of service incremental changes are associated with acorresponding quality of service variable.
 17. The method of claim 10,wherein updating one or more of the associated general reputation scoreand the associated user reputation score comprises updating theassociated user reputation score for a negotiation print serviceprovider that performs a service based on a quality of the service thatis performed for the user.
 18. The method of claim 10, wherein updatingone or more of the associated general reputation score and theassociated user reputation score comprises updating the associatedgeneral reputation score for a negotiation print service provider thatdoes not perform a service based on a quality of a negotiation processbetween the user and the negotiation print service provider.